4.7 Article

Wood-Ash Fertiliser and Distance from Drainage Ditch Affect the Succession and Biodiversity of Vascular Plant Species in Tree Plantings on Marginal Organic Soil

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12020421

关键词

cutaway peatlands; ecosystem services; peat; plant growth forms; reforestation; restoration; vegetation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cutaway peatland is a challenging land for plant growth, but wood-ash application can improve soil quality and promote tree growth. The distance from a drainage ditch and fertilizer application positively affect plant diversity, vegetation cover, and composition. However, the fertilizer dose does not have a significant effect.
Cutaway peatland is a marginal land, which without further management is an unfavourable environment for plant growth due to low bearing capacity, high acidity and unbalanced nutrient composition of the soil. After wood-ash application, the soil becomes enriched with P and K, creating better conditions for tree growth. In addition to being economically viable, tree plantations ensure long-term carbon storage and promote habitat restoration. In a three-year term, we studied how distance from a drainage ditch and three different doses of wood-ash-5, 10, and 15 tons per hectare-affect the diversity of vascular plants in a tree plantation on a cutaway peatland. Plant species richness, vegetation cover and composition were positively affected by the distance from the drainage ditch and application with fertiliser, but in most cases, fertiliser dose had no significant effect. Both cover and species diversity were not affected by the planted tree species. In a tree plantation, herbaceous plants provide soil fertility by decay and recycling, and reduce mineral leaching in the long term. Since vascular plants play an important role in both the development of habitats and tree growth, it is important to know how multiple factors influence the development of vegetation in tree plantations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据